OF CANONS, CANNONS, & CANARDS – PART THE SECOND – ORIGINAL INTENT

In Part the Second of Original Intent, I will discuss Separation of Church and State.

This is indeed a bone of major contention between Atheists & theists alike. There’s a huge amount of theists who do insist that the item in question (the 1st amendment) is Uni-directional. Ergo, they feel that the Church (usually theirs) is fully entitled to put another cook in the kitchen, regardless of whether or not it spoils the meal.

Let’s look at the item in question:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

Where anyone with half a brain gets the idea that this quantifies as uni-directional is beyond me.

We have the Establishment clause.

From answers.com – “Establishment Clause of the First Amendment “

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Frequently, the "Establishment Clause" is used to refer to the entire clause referring to religion, but the term is more accurately used to refer to the first part of the clause. The second part of the clause is commonly referred to as the "Free Exercise" clause.

Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, the Supreme Court generally took the position that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments. Subsequently, under the Incorporation doctrine the Bill of Rights have been broadly applied to limit state and local government as well. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, Justice David Souter concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." Critics of this interpretation argue that it effectively changes the Constitution in a way never contemplated by the founders. However, this is a controversial and evolving area of jurisprudence.”

And yes, the origin of the phrase stems from the famous letter of Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists (one overlooked item, is that ole TJ was president at the time).

Apparently, thanks to revisionism, this little nugget is effectively overlooked when the debate surfaces (from the above source):

“However, Madison himself often wrote of "total separation of the church from the state" (1819 letter to Walsh), "perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters" (1822 letter to Livingston), "line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority... entire abstinence of the government" (1832 letter Rev. Adams), and "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" (1811 letter to Baptist Churches)”

Line, wall…tomato, To-mat-toe.

David Barton is the sycophant who claims that the SOCAS is a ‘myth’. I’ll discuss this wanker at a later time. Sufficient to say, he’s one of those knobs who goes about telling religious folk what they want to hear, as opposed to the facts of the matter, performing gymnastics of revisionism that would make Mary Lou Hetton proud.

Yes, Rehnquist had a dissenting opinion about this; the theists are quick to point out.

A dissenting opinion isn’t law. It’s an opinion, nothing more.

Ergo, keep prayer in the church, religion there as well: The Supreme Court decided wisely that it was indeed entirely the venue of the parents to teach religion: not the state, not the government.

Let’s look at this sentence:

“Critics of this interpretation argue that it effectively changes the Constitution in a way never contemplated by the founders. However, this is a controversial and evolving area of jurisprudence.”

Let’s define amendment, shall we?

http://www.answers.com/Amendment - “a·mend·ment n.

• The act of changing for the better; improvement: “Society may sometimes show signs of repentance and amendment” (George G. Coulton).


• A correction or alteration, as in a manuscript.


• 
  


• The process of formally altering or adding to a document or record.


• A statement of such an alteration or addition: The 19th Amendment to the Constitution gave women the right to vote.

Of course it changes the Constitution. Obviously, the founders were smart enough to realize that the times change. Nothing is locked in stasis. All is amenable to change.

The arguments pour in: the founders were religious; they quoted the bible, look at all these items that were done in the name of religion by the founders in their time, blah blah blah blah.

Don’t change a thing. Because it’s in writing. The nature of an amendment is that it’s changeable. Fluid.

Get used to it.

Our government’s messed up enough, without church administrators. Religion is like sex: best kept behind closed doors, unless someone’s invited to participate.

And for those who claim ‘these quotes/concepts are taken out of context?”

Prove it.

And for those of you who proclaim loudly, that the ‘majority’ is in charge, the ‘majority’ is Xtian, ergo there shouldn’t be a separation of state and religion, I leave you with these words of wisdom:

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801